Perhaps those in the know on this forum can explain to me the purpose
of some buses (and I have seen them on routes 28 and 295, both operated
from Westbourne Park Garage) this week having the word "EXTRA" in the
ultimate destination panel.

Obviously, I understand the concept of "extra" buses, but surely this
is something that would be reflected in the running number, and of
interest to bus inspectors on the route, but of no interest or
relevance to passengers who want to know where the bus is actually
going!

So, when "via points" are finally abolished from all London buses, as
the disabled lobby seems to be achieving, some buses will merely have
a route number on display and the word "EXTRA", thus providing no
useful information for the hapless ordinary passenger. What a way we
have come from London's buses offering an unparallelled wealth of route
information.

Marc.

" wrote:

So, when "via points" are finally abolished from all London buses, as
the disabled lobby seems to be achieving,

I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, but why on earth would the disabled
lobby want to eliminate the "via" text from a destination sign? I could see a
bus company maybe wanting to simplify signage and having some marginally more
flexibility, but the disabled?

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote:

I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, but why on earth would the
disabled
lobby want to eliminate the "via" text from a destination sign? I could
see a
bus company maybe wanting to simplify signage and having some marginally
more
flexibility, but the disabled?

As the totally blind can see neither the 'via' points nor the destination,
surely it is discriminatory for anyone to know where the bus is going?

Chris

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message
...
" wrote:

So, when "via points" are finally abolished from all London buses,
as
the disabled lobby seems to be achieving,

I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, but why on earth would the
disabled
lobby want to eliminate the "via" text from a destination sign? I
could see a
bus company maybe wanting to simplify signage and having some
marginally more
flexibility, but the disabled?


I suspect the argument is that those disabled with poor eyesight will
find it easier to read a destination in a large font rather than
having to try and read a smaller font which is necessitated by having
1 or more via points listed in the same space. Plus, dont forget that
disabled does not necessarily mean wheelchair bound, all wheelchair
bound people can be classified as disabled, but not all disabled are
wheelchair bound.

In article ,
Matt Wheeler wrote:
all wheelchair
bound people can be classified as disabled,

This is not true for many real situations - even when you exclude
"rag week" - and sensible definitions.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

In message , Matt Wheeler
writes
I suspect the argument is that those disabled with poor eyesight will
find it easier to read a destination in a large font rather than
having to try and read a smaller font which is necessitated by having
1 or more via points listed in the same space.
Yes I suspect that as well.

The problem is as another poster has pointed out, the logic is that if a
person with certain type of disability can't do something (in this case
read a small "via" point), then *nobody* is allowed to do it.

The upshot of this is the truly stupid situation where we now have 13s
saying simply "Aldwych" or "Golders Green" [1] with no indication of the
very important places they serve en route.

That said, I've not seen an official statement that the removal of "via"
points is being done for this reason. Can anyone else (Paul C?)
confirm or deny this?

Plus, dont forget that
disabled does not necessarily mean wheelchair bound, all wheelchair
bound people can be classified as disabled, but not all disabled are
wheelchair bound.
I would never have assumed that it did. But I can't see the relevance
of that to this to the argument. Indeed, providing consideration for
wheelchair use can sometimes *disadvantage* other passengers (eg
reducing the number of seats and stanchions and increasing the space
between those stanchions).


[1] Interestingly with the word "Station" beneath in lower type!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

"Chris Read" wrote:

As the totally blind can see neither the 'via' points nor the destination,
surely it is discriminatory for anyone to know where the bus is going?

Thank you for pulling my leg. It was a little awkward with one shorter than the
other...

"Matt Wheeler" wrote:

I suspect the argument is that those disabled with poor eyesight will
find it easier to read a destination in a large font rather than
having to try and read a smaller font which is necessitated by having
1 or more via points listed in the same space.

Ahhh....

Ian Jelf wrote in
:


That said, I've not seen an official statement that the removal of "via"
points is being done for this reason. Can anyone else (Paul C?)
confirm or deny this?


I understand the argument against via points is that they are confusing as
the bus may already have gone past that point and/or they may be listed in
the wrong order.

It is a valid argument but I don't think it outweighs the usefulness of via
points to those with some elementary geographic knowledge.

In article 34,
(David Jackman) wrote:

Ian Jelf wrote in
:

That said, I've not seen an official statement that the removal of
"via" points is being done for this reason. Can anyone else (Paul
C?) confirm or deny this?

I understand the argument against via points is that they are
confusing as the bus may already have gone past that point and/or
they may be listed in the wrong order.

It is a valid argument but I don't think it outweighs the usefulness
of via points to those with some elementary geographic knowledge.

Doesn't this discussion highlight the need for TfL to get itself into
the 21st century and start using electronic destination information like
the rest of the country? Then via points can be updated en route to
remove ones that have been passed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel